Menu

#275 Mention the release version/date of SBO that is described in the spec

closed
5
2015-05-14
2014-10-07
No

Section 5 of the specification for L2v4 does not mention which release of SBO is described, making it difficult for a reader to know whether any changes they find in SBO today are the result of errors in the spec or changes in SBO since the spec was released. We should mention the version of SBO described.

Discussion

  • Nicolas Le Novère

    I do not agree. Specifying the SBO version would freeze its use. One could not add types of parameters, rate laws etc. The interest of SBO is that it is continuously evolving. Being a proper ontology, terms do not disappear of change meaning. Freezing it would not even allow us to fix mistakes.

    If we need an SBML endorsed version of a vocabulary, this must be in the specification itself, as the list of units or math elements. This is a completely different use case.

     
    • Michael Hucka

      Michael Hucka - 2014-10-07

      Yes, of course! I didn't realize my issue report was so unclear. It was always the case that the specifications only described the top level of SBO and left the details for people to find in SBO itself. I'm merely saying what Lucian clarified below, that the specification does not currently say "at the time this specification was written, SBO was at release X" -- but it should say that somewhere.

       

      Last edit: Michael Hucka 2014-10-07
  • Lucian Smith

    Lucian Smith - 2014-10-07

    I think the idea was not to freeze SBO at a particular release, but rather merely to emphasize that the description of SBO in the SBML spec was based on a particular release. It would continue to be emphasized that the current version of SBO should always be used, and would always be legal. At least, that's my take on what Mike was getting at.

     
  • Nicolas Le Novère

    Sorry, my mistake :-(

    I agree with the change then.

     
  • Brett Olivier

    Brett Olivier - 2014-10-08

    I agree with the change

     
  • Frank Bergmann

    Frank Bergmann - 2014-10-08

    I agree with the change and that it should be done.

     
  • Dagmar Waltemath

    I agree with the change and that it should be done.

     
  • Michael Hucka

    Michael Hucka - 2014-10-10
    • assigned_to: Michael Hucka
     
  • Michael Hucka

    Michael Hucka - 2014-10-10

    Based on the SBML Development Process for handling issue reports, we have 4 out of 5 editors agreeing with the change. I'm changing the status to accepted and adding it to the list of collected errata at http://sbml.org/Documents/Specifications/SBML_Level_2/Version_4/Errata

     
  • Michael Hucka

    Michael Hucka - 2014-10-10
    • status: open --> accepted
     
  • Lucian Smith

    Lucian Smith - 2015-05-13
    • status: accepted --> closed
     
  • Lucian Smith

    Lucian Smith - 2015-05-13

    This change has been incorporated into the L2v5 release candidate.

     
  • Lucian Smith

    Lucian Smith - 2015-05-14
    • labels: SBML Level 2 Version 4 --> Level 2 Version 4, Level 3 Version 1 Core
     
  • Lucian Smith

    Lucian Smith - 2015-05-14
    • Group: Reported-Proposed --> Accept-no-conformance-implications
     

Log in to post a comment.

MongoDB Logo MongoDB